At 4/1/2010 1:33:15 AM, Puck wrote:3 separate labs all did a test that came to around circa 1260-1390 for the material. Catholic church had observers at all 3 if I recall correctly.

Then why isn't it regarded as officially debunked by everyone then?

Why do people not want to believe empiricism for many things? Religious belief has primacy. Plus icon worship is a fairly rooted concept in catholic history and practice. Just look at the word relic. :P

And no it's not disproof of Jesus, as a single shroud doesn't fit the story too well.

I know. I said it was evidence of his non-existence. Why? Because dismantled evidence for a claim, is evidence against the claim.

Eh, inferential error. I say elephants exist - a claim on this is I state they exist in Japan. You spend a great many years in Japan, traveling the countryside. No elephants!

To infer then that there are no elephants, is an inferential error as there are possibilities (evidence) that can exist outside and not contingent on my claim that they exist in Japan.

At 4/1/2010 1:33:15 AM, Puck wrote:3 separate labs all did a test that came to around circa 1260-1390 for the material. Catholic church had observers at all 3 if I recall correctly.

Then why isn't it regarded as officially debunked by everyone then?

Why do people not want to believe empiricism for many things? Religious belief has primacy. Plus icon worship is a fairly rooted concept in catholic history and practice. Just look at the word relic. :P

Despite the irrationality of the religious, you would think that most would accept scientific fact. Also, why didn't it make the major news that it was officially debunked?

And no it's not disproof of Jesus, as a single shroud doesn't fit the story too well.

I know. I said it was evidence of his non-existence. Why? Because dismantled evidence for a claim, is evidence against the claim.

Eh, inferential error. I say elephants exist - a claim on this is I state they exist in Japan. You spend a great many years in Japan, traveling the countryside. No elephants!

To infer then that there are no elephants, is an inferential error as there are possibilities (evidence) that can exist outside and not contingent on my claim that they exist in Japan.

You're right. I used poor wording.

I meant to say that dismantled evidence of a claim certainly is a blow against it. If it is widely believed that a piece of evidence validates a claim, then dismantled evidence could be seen as contrary evidence to the widely believed claim.

Why do people not want to believe empiricism for many things? Religious belief has primacy. Plus icon worship is a fairly rooted concept in catholic history and practice. Just look at the word relic. :P

Despite the irrationality of the religious, you would think that most would accept scientific fact. Also, why didn't it make the major news that it was officially debunked?

How many Catholics do you know swear by it? Not many that I know, mainly the entrenched elderly who don't really care about empirical evidence in everyday matters anyway. It did make the news, at least in archaeological circles :P

We don't get a news break every time no one gets a miracle granted at Lourdes, either. :P

And no it's not disproof of Jesus, as a single shroud doesn't fit the story too well.

I know. I said it was evidence of his non-existence. Why? Because dismantled evidence for a claim, is evidence against the claim.

Eh, inferential error. I say elephants exist - a claim on this is I state they exist in Japan. You spend a great many years in Japan, traveling the countryside. No elephants!

To infer then that there are no elephants, is an inferential error as there are possibilities (evidence) that can exist outside and not contingent on my claim that they exist in Japan.

You're right. I used poor wording.

I meant to say that dismantled evidence of a claim certainly is a blow against it. If it is widely believed that a piece of evidence validates a claim, then dismantled evidence could be seen as contrary evidence to the widely believed claim.

Sure, not entirely sure how many pin their faith on a piece of cloth they will never see or touch though. :P

At 4/1/2010 1:56:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Despite the irrationality of the religious, you would think that most would accept scientific fact. Also, why didn't it make the major news that it was officially debunked?

How many Catholics do you know swear by it? Not many that I know, mainly the entrenched elderly who don't really care about empirical evidence in everyday matters anyway. It did make the news, at least in archaeological circles :P

Ahh, I see. I thought it was widely held by the religious that the Shroud is authentic.

We don't get a news break every time no one gets a miracle granted at Lourdes, either. :P

Hahaa.

You're right. I used poor wording.

I meant to say that dismantled evidence of a claim certainly is a blow against it. If it is widely believed that a piece of evidence validates a claim, then dismantled evidence could be seen as contrary evidence to the widely believed claim.

Sure, not entirely sure how many pin their faith on a piece of cloth they will never see or touch though. :P

Well, yes. But even though it may not apply to the Shroud, it applies in general

At 4/1/2010 1:25:16 AM, Puck wrote:Erm they did analysis of the cloth. It's a forged artifact from the medieval period.

The guy who realised that later determind that they had merely analysed a section from a medieval repair... and decided that the shroud may in fact have been genuine.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Arabs have been as asian as others but turned dark..!!Arabs mixed with their trading partners mostly blacks..!!

Erm no, for most of their history they would not been in contact with blacks.

Egieptions and real palastinians where black

Again no... they were not. We can see from what they left behind that they were not.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.